1.Approval of February 15, 2006 minutes

The minutes were approved with minor corrections. Please email
additional corrections to mstaff@hawaii.edu

2.Chairs report

Devolution Initiative:

Bley-Vroman reminded senators that at the
last meeting a resolution was passed calling for a study of the system
functions by May 20, and requesting that no candidates be interviewed
for any Vice-President positions until the positions are justified.
The next day, President McClain announced a devolution initiative,
asking for reports from his vice-presidents. The following week
Bley-Vroman urged him to make public the memo where he asked that
vice-presidents detail what percentage of their work was Manoa focused
versus work at the system level, and copies were given to the
chancellors. Thus, the Senate's efforts seem to have spurred some
action on devolution, though it is too early to gauge success.
Experience indicates that if you ask administators what they can give
up, you may not get much. Bley-Vroman noted he would be surprised if
system executives report that their offices should be smaller. Given
this reality, continuing pressure should be brought to bear on the
matter.

Permanent presidency appointment without a search

The Regents met and accepted the committee's recommendation to
appoint McClain without a search. At the BOR meeting, Bley-Vroman
expressed discomfort this happened without an opportunity to comment.
Bley-Vroman also asked regents to consider keeping the President's
salary in line, with heads of state higher education systems, and not
with major university president salaries. Bley-Vroman mentioned that
the big house near campus should be occupied by the head of the nearby
campus, not the head of the system, and asked that College Hill not be
a part of McClain's contract. This matter has not been raised on the
senate floor but has been discussed by the SEC. The BOR appeared to
be sympathetic, yet College Hill is a part of the deal in the
president's contract.

Search committee for Chancellor

The search has been delayed because of the regent's focus on the
system presidency. But now, we have a committee, and membership will
be made public this week. Bley-Vroman is chair, and appointed faculty
include Barry Raleigh, Elizabeth Tam, Ruth Dawson, Ric Trimillos,
Denise Antolini, Tom Ramsey. There are three deans: Raleigh,
Kudritzki, Dubonowski. Kame`eleihiwa will represent Kuuli`i Council.
Committee will meet soon and begin to contact possible search
firms.

Public Policy Center/Certificate

The proposal to form a public policy center in Social Sciences and
a related proposal for a graduate certificate in pub policy were
stalled when the Senate postponed acting due to some comments on the
proposal. The committee is still working on these matters and expects
to have a clearer report and proposals next month.

Discussion: Garcia (SOEST) asked if it is possible to poll senators
before making statements on behalf of the senate. Bley-Vroman
responded that the Chair should not represent a view unless he was
asked to do it. That's why Bley-Vroman said he couldn't have an
opinion on the appointment of McClain?the senate had not considered
the matter. With respect to College Hill, he admitted to going out on
a limb. We know what's on BOR agenda usually, but in this case it was
last minute notice. The BOR actions at this meeting were unusual.

Garcia commented that most faculty check email more than once a day
and could often offer comments if asked. Bley-Vroman felt that
generally the senate should meet.

Bangert (CBA) mentioned it would be easy to set up a yahoo group
with polling and balloting features. Bley-Vroman noted it was worth
exploring.

Wieczorek (CTAHR) commented that senate committees have been making
decisions by email. Senate by-laws don't currently permit this for
the senate as a whole.

Bley-Vroman felt it would require some thought..wearing his
parliamentarian hat, he wondered if it would be possible to have a
group this size work properly by email since the chair would not be
able to check if there was quorum and there would be possible
disagreements on when to stop debate.

3.Senate Executive Committee

a. Resolution to move the system administration off the Manoa
campus

Jim Tiles presented the resolution, which is presented as a means
of applying further pressure toward devolution. The resolution asks
the system to move offices away from Manoa. Although the original
drafts included more reasons, some were removed.

Colleagues from around the system have been surprised to learn that
Manoa administration is quite slim. They did not realize this because
of the system presence; the system has stayed close to Manoa, with the
effect of blurring the issue.

Other reasons: there is a space shortage at Manoa. If system moved
downtown, it would be easier to interact with legislators, businesses,
donors.

JT read the resolution:

Resolution on Moving the Hawaii University System offices

Whereas, The present location of the University of Hawai'i System
executive offices on the Manoa campus causes colleagues on other
campuses to regard the actions of the System as the actions of the
University of Hawai'i at Manoa; and

Whereas, The present location of the University of Hawai'i System is
an obstacle to the clear separation of function and of lines of
authority that is needed for the effective administration of both the
University of Hawai'i System and the University of Hawai'i at Manoa;
be it therefore

Resolved, That the executive offices of the University of Hawai'i
System shall be moved to a location that is separate from any campus
of the University System.

Discussion:

Bridges (NS) asked if we want ITS, a very large office, moved out
of system?

Tiles stated we need an ITS for Manoa. This resolution won't
determine what would get moved, but there may be a resolution
regarding ITS in the future.

Raleigh (SOEST) asked if we should add that we want the
administrative offices moved? We can't move everything system.

Garcia: commented that we shouldn't be concerned about what the
other campuses think.. if we have a strong chancellor that would be
more important?

Tiles noted that it does matter what others feel and say since
resentment of Manoa is strong. It should help if responsibilities
were separated.

Bangert stated that he knows McClain well and interacts with him a
great deal. McClain supports moving off campus. His problem is how
to pay for it. If collective intelligence can help with this, it's
the right thing to do. As a dean he believed in decentralization. He
needs more than pressure, he needs ideas, support. It would be best
to move the symbolic offices quickly, and other offices like ORS
later.

Lampe (NS) added that the resolution gives the sense of the senate,
not a blueprint.

Someone asked if other senates are passing similar resolutions?

Tiles noted he and Bley-Vroman could take it to ACCFS next Friday
and ask them to support it.

Sansone (SOEST) said he liked the suggestion to put
"administrative" in the resolution. To him, it is good that ORS is
just down the street. But since Varsity building is empty, wouldn't
that be a good place to move?

Bridges noted that MFS should consider that the legislature might
move system offices to Hilo.

There were several comments about a possible downtown location.
Such a location might symbolize removal of what we're about. There is
something special about a university campus.

Tiles note that we are not asking to move Manoa administration away
from campus. We only want to move the system administration, the
office administering 10 campuses of different types. There are two
layers of administration at Manoa, only one of which is proper to have
here, with the result that the President sometimes appears to be
interfering in what the Chancellor is doing.

Garcia asked, given the needs within the system, what message are
we giving to people of Hawaii to ask that resources be used in this
way?

Tiles reminded all that we have significant needs on this campus.
The resolution though is not really about space but about lines of
authority.

Grandy (SS) asked would we be willing to go with this if
legislature says fine, but costs come from Manoa?

Ramsey (NS): Manoa now bears some of the system costs. For
example, guards for the President come from the Manoa budget. We pay
system office electricity, phones. Manoa already subsidizes some
aspects of the system.

Weems (CTAHR) suggested that if the concern is not to have our
chancellor bullied, the bullier should be removed.

Ramsey noted that the higher education system includes programs
such as auto mechanics, vocational rather than university education
programs. We need the system to be seen more neutrally-hosting higher
education in its many forms. If system offices stays on the Manoa
campus, confusion will reign.

Lampe suggested we think about a place such as the UC system, with
its offices in Oakland, not at the Berkeley campus. It works quite
well - and was moved to this neutral location to make it work
better.

Raleigh moved to add "executive" to the resolved (to move the
executive offices).

By voice vote, the motion passed unanimously with one
abstention.

The question was called and the motion passed.
In favor: 32,
Opposed: 5
Absentions: 3

b. Resolution on a system UARC at Manoa

This resolution was presented by Martha Staff. Since President
McClain has proposed keeping the UARC alive as a system entity, the
SEC has been asking how a system UARC will impact progress toward
devolution, Manoa autonomy, and faculty governance. She noted that it
seemed UARC task orders would be carried out on the Manoa campus, by
Manoa faculty, yet the Chancellor, Senate and other campus governance
entities would play no role in management and oversight. She
mentioned it was problematic if we could have a UH President who could
override a thoughtful campus decision, and that such an organization
would not have the authority and autonomy that WASC suggests is
proper. Staff noted that although we can appreciate the President was
acting in good faith to find a compromise, that the process left the
matter too unclear. She stated there has never been any evidence that
faculty or labs from other campuses would be involved, and it made no
sense to have a UARC run by the system in this case.

Garcia noted there had been an independent investigation by UHARI
and the Senate should refer to this discussion.

Bley-Vroman noted the resolution was not intended to raise
substantive issues.

Paull (CTAHR) said that ORS is a system office. Using the same
logic, ORS should be changed to campus level.

Lampe commented that ORS is a separate issue but there were many
who thought ORS should be moved to Manoa.

Raleigh stated that, unfortunately whether you mean it or not, this
looks like a slap at the president. For possibly good reasons, the
President agreed with Manoa, but for his own reasons he also proposed
an alternative UARC. In this form, the resolution looks like we are
annoyed we lost that battle.

Wieczorak wanted to know what are you asking for? Who would
administer it?

Tiles said we are asking that the UARC not take place. The
resolution was originally titled "a back door UARC." The Senate voted
that UARC should be administered nowhere.

Ramsey commented that some might be happy with a UARC if it was an
off-campus, private entity and that in the early days that was indeed
the concept. If we could we should go back to that concept. He noted
he supports this resolution simply because its clear the UARC is
embedded at Manoa, and it shouldn't be as a system unit.

Manshardt (CTAHR) asked if it would it be better to redraft a
different resolution?

Bley-Vroman stated it would be possible to postpone a month or
indefinitely, or to refer to a committee.

Bangert commented he would like to see more in the resolution. He
noted that Martha and Jim don't seem to have the same attitude.
Martha says it's about process. Jim says he doesn't want UARC at
all.

Tiles said that he agreed with Ramsey's comments.

Lampe noted that he agrees with the current resolution in front of
us.

A non-senator commented that the host culture was very clear about
the acceptability of UARC?it is not acceptable at UHM or
elsewhere.

Kent (SS) said he's against any UARC. If we go with the
President's plan, it's the worst of all possible worlds. Manoa would
have no oversight which makes it worse than what was proposed before.
Faculty should also be concerned about the potential of military
penetration here.

Keever (non-senator) pointed out that if the senate passes the
resolution it will alert McClain that we don't want UARC on this
campus.

Raleigh noted that the President has negotiated a 3-year moratorium
on classified research. This might change what faculty want.

Lampe proposed that this resolution be postponed since the
arguments are about the UARC not the resolution.

Yates (JABSOM) suggested tabling the resolution, since it seems to
be a way of rubbing the president's nose in it.

Tiles argued against postponing indefinitely and said he would like
it considered next month. Soon, this issue will come up with BOR. We
need to keep the resolution warm, and he would prefer that this be
addressed today, since it is in sympathy with our previous decision.

Yue (LLL) seconded Tile's comments. The discussion will go on
anyway. The larger question is still on the table.

Ramos (CRC) suggested not postponing. The resolution is clear this
is about the devolution. This is an example of what we're trying to
prevent with respect to Manoa-system confusion.

Bley-Vroman commented that if someone wants to bring this up again
they must follow the senate's process.

4.New business

a.Senate website information

Manshardt asked if the resolutions were available on line before
the meeting?

Bley-Vroman noted that the usual practice is to post senate agenda
and materials by the end of the week preceding the meeting. In this
case, one of the resolutions was copied twice, with different titles,
but this was a mistake. Ideally, the agenda for each senate meeting
is set 9 or 10 days before the meeting and items are posted a few days
later.

b.Retiree matters

Riggs (retiree) noted that the resolution on retiree participation,
passed unanimously at the last meeting doesn't appear yet on the
website. Names for retiree committee representation were submitted to
the Chair. Bley-Vroman confirmed he'd received the list of names, and
it will be acted on by SEC next Monday. He promised to check on
posting the retiree resolution.

c. More on UARC

Bley-Vroman commented that the UARC dilemma has been difficult,
personally and institutionally. He's grateful for the civility, at
least superficially, that Senate has had. The Senate made a decision.
The chancellor said something very close to what we said, emphatically
rejecting the UARC, but left open the possibility of having a UARC
type research off campus. As it stands, the President's proposal is
unclear, but it had two distinctly different aspects: a 3-year
moratorium on classified research and a proposal that it be
administratively housed at system level.

A speaker (?) asked if we were now going to do nothing more. We
voted against UARC but now we seem to be choosing to lay low.

Forman (non-senator) had suggested during Congress that we need a
faculty review. It could be done in the first 3 years of the UARC.

Bley-Vroman inquired if this was a suggestion that we should ask
to what extent do researchers have the right to accept funding from
anywhere. Should a review cover classified or proprietary
research?

Wieczorek noted that we just voted to postpone the last resolution
indefinitely?can we now say we don't like the system doing a UARC?

Tiles commented that if the Manoa faculty and facilities are
involved, this goes against where we are going with devolution.

Bley-Vroman said the UARC revealed a cultural divide in the Senate.
We formerly had many bickering factions, but the split is more serious
here.

Kent: The anti-UARC side will be going to court, will pull out all
stops on this matter

A speaker (?) noted there are real splits but that's ok. Our role
in the Pacific basin is very important. We need to ask what role
besides a military one, can we play? What is the role of the
university? Our brochures use cultural symbolism on every page. What
does this mean? We talk about nuts and bolts and not enough about the
bigger issues.